MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095869603 · doi:10.21083/surg.v3i1.1027

Determination of Imperviousness in the Highland Creek Watershed

2009· article· en· W2095869603 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Angelin Satgunarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedImpervious surfaceWatershed areaEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Urban areaTime of concentrationGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Highland Creek watershed, an area of about 100 square kilometres in the region of Toronto, was selected for this study. As a highly urbanized area, construction of roads and buildings has increased the region’s imperviousness to watershed, which can cause severe impairment to both the quality and quantity of water. The imperviousness of this region therefore needed to be assessed to manage the watershed area effectively, and to improve future development projects. The task of assessing the watershed area was accomplished using digitized aerial photographs and Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Because GIS does not give detail total road area of land use, the difference between total area and impervious area was calculated and assigned as a total road area. The ratio between the impervious area and the total area was calculated to assess the impervious ratio of the watershed area, and was assigned a value of 0.533. Using this method, more than 120 subcategories can be selected within this watershed area, and the imperviousness can be calculated using land use subcategory ratios and averages ratios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207